ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Development and validation of a physical literacy assessment questionnaire for college students.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Physical literacy (PL) plays a vital role in promoting lifelong health, wellbeing, and sustained engagement in physical activity. This study aimed to develop and validate a physical literacy assessment questionnaire for college students (PLAQ-CS). Methods: This cross-sectional study employed a mixed-method sequential design to develop and validate the PLAQ-CS. Domains and preliminary items were generated through an extensive literature review and semi-structured interviews with 11 students. Fourteen experts evaluated item relevance and clarity to establish content validity. A total of 1,017 students participated in the quantitative phase to assess the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to refine the item pool, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine factorial validity. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Results: The resulting PLAQ-CS comprises six domains: "physical skill," "physical cognition," "physical affectivity," "physical habit," "physical morality," and "physical fitness." The EFA showed 15 factors with an explanation of 70.844% of the total variance. CFA supported the six-factor structural model proposed by the researchers, evidenced by excellent model fit indices (GFI = 0.926, AGFI = 0.907, NFI = 0.828, RFI = 0.823, IFI = 0.819, TLI = 0.815, CFI = 0.844, RMSEA = 0.048). The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the PLAQ-CS was 0.956, with sub-questionnaires ranging from 0.780 to 0.896. The PLAQ-CS includes 47 items, all of which demonstrate good validity and reliability. Conclusion: The PLAQ-CS demonstrates scientific reliability and validity, making it suitable for assessing the PL levels of college students. Future research should focus on further validating this questionnaire across different countries and regions, with the goal of enhancing college students' PL and promoting the sustainable development of their physical and mental health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.